G MURUGESAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant before us was the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 5688 of 1997, feeling aggrieved by his non-selection of STD/PT BOOTH. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 27-11-1997. This appeal is directed against the said order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant ought to have been given allotment for STD/PT Booth pursuant to his application made. The Selection made by the Committee in selecting the candidates was not fair and proper. It has been flimsical. Even the Committee had made allotment to four persons wrongly which allotments were cancelled when pointed out. This only shows that the selection Committee did not consider the applications properly on merits. Keeping in view the norms/guidelines laid down. The learned single Judge in the order impugned in this appeal, has stated thus in paragraphs 11 to 13 :

(3.) Having regard to what is stated by the learned single Judge in the paragraphs extracted above, we do not find any infirmity or good ground so as to admit this writ appeal. The learned Judge as can be seen from paragraph 13 of his order, has taken note of the fact that the appellant did not come in the category of unemployed; his father was employed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Tuticorin Port Trust and his mother had been allotted STD/PT in the category of unemployed already; the applications were invited for allotment of STD/ST booths in the scheme to provide employment to unemployed youth. Under the circumstances, in our view, the writ appeal does not merit admission. Hence it is rejected at the stage of admission. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 1343 of 1998 is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.